The Doctrine of Original Sin (Part 4)

The Doctrine of Original Sin (Part 4)

A Historical Church View of Original Sin

 In The Doctrine of The Fall and Original Sin in the Second Century, Harold Forshey gives a historical account and the concept of the fall and Doctrine of Original Sin. In his thesis, he states, "This study will attempt to delineate the extent to which this doctrine is present in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the second century.[1] He begins his argument with the basic idea of the concept of the Fall and Original Sin. He does this by surveying the history of the Fall and Original Sin, as it was understood by Pelagius, Augustine, Calvin, and Roman Catholicism.  In an attempt to explain the historical church view of Original Sin, this writer will discuss the earliest views of Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian briefly. Unlike Forshey, Calvin, and Roman Catholicism will not be discussed. Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202) was the first practical theologian of the church, and he represented neither Western nor Eastern thought. He did not have much to say about Original Sin, nor did he form any theories on the subject as he had no occasion to discuss the matter.  According to Moxon, “the fall according to Irenaeus, did not deprive the human race of the power of development, nor of freedom of will nor communion with God." [2]  He felt that subsequent generations could recover what Adam had lost.[3] In contrast, Clement (A.D. 190-203) does not address the Doctrine of Original Sin in any of his writings. Origen (A.D. 185-254) taught a doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin, which to some small extent, resembled that which subsequently reached its developed form in Augustine but was far more indefinite and differed in specific material points.[4] Tertullian’s (A.D.160- A.D. 220) theory of inherited sin and the corruption of human nature helped develop the Doctrine of Original Sin, which was completed by Augustine in the fifth century.  

Pelagius

 Pelagius was a monk from Britain who gained notoriety and a reputation in theology after he went to Rome around A.D. 380. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the Doctrine of Original Sin. Pelagius taught that man is born with the same nature as Adam before the fall and that their subsequent sinning was a consequence only of their imitation of the sins of Adam. Therefore, Pelagius did not hold to a Doctrine of Original Sin, and he firmly believed that it had no biblical basis. He believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin were restricted to themselves only and thereby denied the belief that Original Sin was passed on to or inherited by the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam’s sin merely “set a bad example” for his offspring. Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation. Moxon says, "The denial of Original Sin carried Pelagius a step farther, and he found himself inevitably led to a rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Fall, in so far as it involved the admission of an inherited corruption of Human Nature."[5] As a result of his underlying assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. One of the fundamental principles of Pelagianism is the thought that freedom is ‘the ability to choose equally and at any moment between good and evil”.[6] Pelagianism resulted in a man-centered gospel of salvation, which is based on human works. Humans could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.   

Augustine

 Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) was a Latin-speaking philosopher and theologian who lived in the Roman Africa Province. His writings were very influential in the development of Western Christianity. He converted to Christianity and was baptized in AD 387. He developed his approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives. He is best noted as the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19), where Adam is described as having disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as Original Sin. Augustine taught that man became utterly corrupt by the fall of Adam and that he can do no good whatever, thereby denying free will. Adam's descendants are guilty and depraved because they participated in his first sin, with the idea that they are guilty and depraved because their appointed representative (Adam) failed his convent obligations.[7] Augustine thought it possible that, in conception, the father sowed a seed of the soul as well as the body.[8] Therefore, man has to rely wholly upon God's forgiving grace, which the believer received undeservedly through the atoning death of Christ.  

Conclusion

Both the Old and New Testaments teach that after Adam and Eve sinned, each subsequent generation would inherit the effects of the previous generation's sin. This sinful nature can be seen in the first generation of the human race, Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Able.  In Genesis 4, Cain's sinfulness is seen in his act of murder out of jealousy. Moreover, the Old Testament passages that teach the Doctrine of Original Sin appear to be proof text. Paul addressed Original Sin in Romans 5:12-21. However, most early theologians either never dealt with the Doctrine of Original Sin, nor did they consider the thought. The latter can easily be compared to the average Christ-follower today. Most never think about the Doctrine of Original Sin but are content with knowing that Jesus is their Savior and Lord. Who, what, when, where, and how are not significant factors for them. However, most modern scholars have been greatly affected by Augustine's view of the Doctrine of Original Sin. Are we interpreting passages like Romans 5:12 correctly? It is easy for modern-day scholars and preachers to interpret Romans 5:12-21 in light of Augustine's thought.

This writer previously thought that the Doctrine of Original Sin had always been accepted in theology. He thought the Apostles and Disciples understood the Doctrine of Original Sin. A quick scan of Romans 5:12-21 would easily convey this thought. However, this understanding did not come to be until the second century. Forshey proved the rabbinical doctrine of yester (the Rabbinical doctrine of the yetser represents a different viewpoint than that found in the Augustinian Fall doctrine). The cause of the transgression was the "evil inclination" (yetser) placed in man in the beginning. It is the cause rather than the result of the fall. Later this idea was supplemented with the idea of the endowment of a "good inclination) which showed inconclusive evidence of a Doctrine of Original Sin as we know it today. This also differs from Augustine’s Fall Doctrine.  Forshey did an excellent job of surveying the History of the Doctrine of Original Sin. His investigation shows that before the second century, most Christians believed in free will.  Until the days of Augustine, this view did not exist, but the idea became a central issue of Christian anthropology and soteriology. This examination has this researcher asking more questions than he has answers. Nevertheless, the thought that lingers on the table is, "For one to say that imputed sin is unfair, then how much more is imputed righteousness? It, too, would be unfair."

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

[1] "Forshey, Harold O. “The Doctrine of The Fall and Original Sin in the Second Century” (Restoration Quarterly, Vol: 3, July 1959): 119-129. [2] Reginald Stewart Moxon. The Doctrine of Sin, a Critical and Historical Investigation Into the Views of the Concept of Sin Held in Early Christian, Medieval and Modern Times. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1922), p 20. [3] Edward Yarnold. The Theology of Original Sin. (Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, 1971) p 58-59. [4] Reginald Stewart Moxon. The Doctrine of Sin, a Critical and Historical Investigation Into the Views of the Concept of Sin Held in Early Christian, Medieval and Modern Times. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1922), p 29. [5] Reginald Stewart Moxon. The Doctrine of Sin, a Critical and Historical Investigation Into the Views of the Concept of Sin Held in Early Christian, Medieval and Modern Times. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1922), p 67. [6] Julius Muller. The Christian Doctrine of Sin. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868) p 37. [7] H. Shelton Smith. Changing Conceptions of Original Sin; A Study in American Theology Since1750, ( New York: Scribner, 1955) p 3. [8] Edward Yarnold. The Theology of Original Sin. (Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, 1971.) p 27.